La perspective étudiante sur la formation comodale, ou hybride flexible
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Un cours offert sous le format comodal, ou HyFlex, peut être suivi en présentiel ou à distance par les étudiants, ce qui leur permet de choisir hebdomadairement le mode qui leur convient le mieux. Il est important, pour le développement de cette offre de formation exploratoire au sein des établissements d’enseignement supérieur, d’examiner la perspective des étudiants inscrits à ces cours. Nous avons proposé un questionnaire à tous les étudiants inscrits dans 9 cours comodaux offerts dans 4 facultés différentes d’une université canadienne; 311 étudiants (N = 311) y ont répondu volontairement. Trois grands constats émergent de notre analyse : le format comodal est grandement apprécié par les étudiants; les étudiants choisissent majoritairement la formation à distance; les étudiants tendent à se familiariser avec un mode et à le garder tout au long de la session.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".